TCNJ JOURNAL OF STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP VOLUME XXII APRIL 2020 COMEDY AS A FORM OF CATHARTIC LIFE WRITING Author: Corinne Petersen Faculty Sponsor: Lisa Ortiz-Vilarelle Department of English ABSTRACT There is something about humor that transcends almost any circumstance of the human condition. As Roger Scruton and Peter Jones write in their examination of laughter, “Man is the only animal that laughs” (Scruton and Jones 197)--and although the nature of how comedy is produced and consumed has rapidly evolved alongside developments in technology and globalization, the thread of human laughter has a constancy that is unbroken by changes in politics, show business, and the world at large. But what exactly is that thread of constancy that comedy seems to offer? Scruton and Jones go on to write, “The phenomenon which we seek to describe has intentionality . Laughter is its full expression, amusement its essence, and humour its intentional object . amusement contains, or is founded on, a thought of which animals are incapable” (Scruton and Jones 198). What I seek to unpack is what, exactly, that “thought” is, and why humor is such an alluring medium for conveying details about life. In this essay, I will argue that the power of comedy lies in its cathartic effects, which allow us to take ownership of losses by re-representing them in meaningful--if somewhat fictionalized--ways. Every comedian interacts somehow with loss, but in particular, Stephen Colbert, Conan O’Brien, and David Sedaris capitalize on losses and spin them to create stellar, yet different, comedic content that functions as a reflection of real life and as a cathartic tool for both themselves and for their audiences. INTRODUCTION All comedic content stems from some sort of loss. In their essay, “Comedy and Tragedy as Two Sides of the Same Coin: Reversal and Incongruity as Sources of Insight,” Eva Dadlez and Daniel Lϋthi refer to incongruity as “one of the decisive links between tragedy and comedy” (Dadlez and Lϋthi 82), and state that, “In current humor research, incongruity theory may qualify as the leading approach” (Dadlez and Lϋthi 84). While I would agree that incongruity is indeed significant for both tragedy and comedy, I would also argue that the word “loss” better encapsulates how tragedy and comedy are, in fact, quite personal. In some cases, the loss may be very significant, such as with WWII journalist Ernie Pyle, who transformed the deplorable situation of infantrymen into a comical set of instructions for how readers at home can simulate the same experience in their backyards (Burns). Or, the situation could have potential for significant loss, like when comedians Jim and Jeannie Gaffigan make jokes about Jeannie’s brain surgery (Comedy Central Stand-Up). In still other cases, the loss may be utterly trivial, such as when comedian John Pinette expresses cartoonish frustration over having his time wasted by people who hold up long lines (ianswilson). Through examples like these, we see that it is not necessarily the severity of the loss that matters in comedy, but rather the depth of the comedian’s response to that loss--after all, it is the response that generates the comedy. Conan O’Brien explains the complex nature of this relationship: “I’ve spent tens, hundreds, thousands of hours thinking about what’s funny, trying to be funny, and it’s still a struggle. It’s always a struggle . it has to achieve that weird, involuntary, physical response (laughter)” (Provenza). He also adds that in order for comedy to be authentically funny, it needs to be natural. “I think comedy needs to be natural . Doing comedy is like being a chef who sprinkles a pinch of salt, sprinkles some oregano, throws in a dash of this and a bit of that. He doesn’t measure everything or think about it and work out the chemical formula. For all of us it’s ultimately just what makes you laugh” (Provenza). Conan’s explanation reveals the personal nature of comedy; its creator must feel connected to 1 C. PETERSEN: COMEDY AS A FORM OF CATHARTIC LIFE WRITING it, and that connection often arises because of a source of pain or anxiety, both of which indicate some type of loss. For example, looking back on the trauma of Jeannie Gaffigan’s brain cancer, Jim Gaffigan says, “I felt like it was when we made some humor out of it (that) we took some of the power back” (Inside Edition). COMIC CATHARSIS Comedy is able to be cathartic because the things that it is laughing at spring from the same well of human emotion that produces the laughter. Dadlez and Lϋthi explain that comedy and tragedy are each “a mode of discourse or genre intended to elicit very specific emotions. Comedy, when successful, elicits amusement. Tragedy aspires to arouse pity and fear,” and, “the two fulfill these distinct functions in surprisingly similar ways” (Dadlez and Lϋthi 82). When thinking specifically about comedy as a form of life writing, this crossover between comedy and tragedy can be seen on two levels: first, the way in which a comedian’s personal losses affect his or her overall career, and second, the way in which a comedian may look at any loss--whether or not it is personal--and then try to draw humor out of it. On The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Jerry Seinfeld and Stephen Colbert, respectively, discuss this phenomenon: “‘There’s a lot of tragedy in comedy.’ ‘There’s comedy because of tragedy.’ ‘But I mean, there’s a lot of people who have tragic lives’” (The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. “Jerry Seinfeld”). Their phrasing makes it seem almost circular, as if comedy leads to tragedy, and tragedy leads to comedy, and there is no way of escaping that cycle except for the brief moments in between when one is laughing. Indeed, part of Aristotle’s theory of aesthetic catharsis is that two of the most cathartic emotions are pity and fear, and although they do not necessarily lead to laughter, they are aroused by errors, as laughter also can be (Pack 406). Of course, in the context of tragedy, these errors would be the likes of the rash decisions caused by Othello’s jealousy or MacBeth’s ambition. But comedic errors--whether they are intentional, such as in physical comedy, or whether they are seriously-intended third-party actions that are then mocked by the comedian--have the same potential as tragic errors to cause a cathartic reaction in the audience. In his essay, “What is Aesthetic Catharsis?” Alan Paskow further explains Aristotle’s theory, saying, “The poet’s function (and by implication that of the tragedian) is to describe ‘not the thing that has happened, but a kind of thing that might happen, i.e., what is possible as being probable or necessary?’” (Paskow 60). Crucial to aesthetic catharsis, he says, is the relationship which develops between the protagonist and the spectator; humans delight in imitations of real human issues, and the spectator looks to the tragic hero as a moral figure--just as we look to real-life figures to help us solve moral issues (Paskow 61). The spectator . vicariously lives through (the protagonist) and in certain respects appropriates in a manner that modifies his global outlook. The spectator’s appropriation is the catharsis, and it results in the peculiar kind of pleasure of which Aristotle speaks . he is also able and even desirous of making this projection because who the character is and what he is inclined to do evoke the possibility of exploring, clarifying, and perhaps resolving an internal conflict of the spectator himself. (Paskow 63) Aristotle’s concept of the protagonist can be applied to the role of the comedian as someone who either adopts a character, or as someone whose exaggerated and perhaps insightful riffing on the issues of life causes relatability, and therefore laughter, and therefore catharsis. Paskow goes on to acknowledge that, “Classical comedy involves catharsis, an experience made possible by a prior (and complex) identification between spectator and a protagonist whose exaggerated (but not revoltingly destructive) foibles invite the viewer’s assent” (67). Even in a day and age where comedy has evolved significantly since early performances of The Comedy of Errors, audiences still experience catharsis through a connection with the comedian. Dadlez and Lϋthi write, “Philosophical and other investigations into humor have [underlined it] not simply (as) the enjoyment afforded by comedy but further emphasizing its role as an authentic counterpart of tragedy, capable of generating equally important insights and capable of canvassing equally significant issues” (Dadlez and Lϋthi 81-82). 2 TCNJ JOURNAL OF STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP VOLUME XXII APRIL 2020 CONAN O’BRIEN In terms of catharsis, comedians become the “protagonist” of whom Aristotle speaks. But how and why specific comedians become specific types of protagonists brings us to a deeper examination of the cathartic nature of comedy for those who are creating it. For example, Conan O’Brien describes his approach to comedy as, “Just that pure desire to make people laugh” (Provenza). This may seem simplistic on the surface, and in a way it is. But O’Brien elaborates on this approach, revealing that it is actually more complex than it may seem: “Whatever fuels someone’s need to be funny, their need to express themselves, they need to follow that direction . We’re all just looking for our fuel . Groups that historically have been thought of as very funny [have] huge amounts of fuel, like repression and cultural insecurity and all of that . All of us are grabbing on to our insecurities” (Provenza). The fact that he says, “someone’s need to be funny” (italics mine), is very significant because it shows that comedy is not just a random choice, but a response to a need--a need to deal with specific losses.